• 17 Feb 2009 at 2:22 PM

Because “Gone Fishing” Would’ve Sounded Too Madoff-y*

By Bess Levin

Per CNBC, the sign currently on the sign of the front door of Stanford Financial: “We are temporarily closed. The company is still in operation but under the management of a receiver.”
Earlier: What Are We Going To Do To Him, Harry?
*Wouldn’t want people to make the association, you know how it is.

Comments (25)

  1. 1
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:33 PM

    Be back in 25-30 (assuming good behavior)

  2. 2
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:33 PM

    Be back in 25-30 (assuming good behavior)

  3. 3
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:34 PM

    It is agreed then, I am the new killing it. Thank you all for your support and kind words.

  4. 4
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:35 PM

    8 billion, some of which went to important political campaigns. Busted Ponzi would require those campaigns to give back the dough, right?
    This particular scandal may be juicier than the Madoff.

  5. 5
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:35 PM

    no live bloggin of a-rod testimony? wtf

  6. 6
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:36 PM

    @4: oooh, very interesting. Do donations count, though? I mean, it’s not like the Picower Foundation or Elie Wiesel’s charity are going to be asked to give money back, so why would Congressmen?

  7. 7
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:37 PM

    not very cricket
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7895505.stm

  8. 8
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:39 PM

    Re: tags,
    The God-damned plane has crashed into the mountain!

  9. 9
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:41 PM

    “blown our wad” hahaha wideclops is amazing

  10. 10
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:44 PM

    @6
    Fraudulent Conveyance is powerful beyond comprehension if properly applied. Was there an intent to defraud, hinder or delay creditors? One could argue that was exactly the purpose of said contributions. I don’t think it would matter if they had knowledge but don’t know what time frame would be for the look-back.
    Under RICO, you might even be able to aggressively take it further if you push the interpretations.
    Any rock star lawyers want to help out?
    We all want (and need) some fireworks.

  11. 11
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:45 PM

    4 8 Corporations can’t contribute to political campaigns. Only individuals. Which means one of two things happens: 1) Someone goes up and down the aisles and collects checks from key employees, usually for the max allowable which I believe is $1750, bundles these checks and sends them to the candidate. Or more likely, 2) employees contribute to the firm’s Political Action Committee, up to a max of $5000 per year. The PAC then doles out money to candidates, to a max of $5000 per year per candidate. Result is that the amount of money that moves in some form from the company to the candidate is not really that big. In addition, rules require that all donations in excess of $200 be reported and subsequently posted on the Federal Election Commission website, so theres a lot of transparency. If a politician is being bought, its more likely occuring through a lobbyist.

  12. 12
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:46 PM

    http://www.bankofantigua.com/assets/files/boa/17162_Stanford_Eagle.pdf
    some great photos of Sir Allen

  13. 13
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM

    12 said – Corporations can’t contribute to political campaigns
    Oooooh. Really? So all that about no taking money from oil companies while standing in front of a gas station was a sham? Who wudve thunk????????
    I love how Hope/Change has given way to all sorts of rationalizations. Good job. didnt even take a month.

  14. 14
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:49 PM

    http://www.bankofantigua.com/assets/files/boa/17162_Stanford_Eagle.pdf
    some great photos of Sir Allen

  15. 15
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:54 PM

    16 So they can contribute? Show me some evidence.
    Re the oil companies: I’ve never thought that they were buying Bush/Cheney et al. The problem there was that, as oilmen, those two believed that there was nothing wrong in the world that a lot of cheep oil couldn’t cure. It even got us a war. And as we are seeing, boy were they wrong.

  16. 16
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:55 PM

    anyone but me think this guy looks like john cleese?

  17. 17
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 2:59 PM

    @16
    Chirpy, chirpy, cheep, cheep.

  18. 18
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:03 PM

    Caption:
    …and then he says, “We’re The Aristocrats!” Haw Haw!

  19. 19
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:03 PM

    Cut this pig Texan’s head off and spit roast him.

  20. 20
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:26 PM

    FISH OR GTFO.

  21. 21
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:29 PM

    “nothing wrong in the world that a lot of cheep oil couldn’t cure”
    Actually, they were aware of the fact that the US is tremendously dependent on oil and absent any signs of anything to replace oil and the enviro nitwits vetoing every nuclear effort, a takeover of something like Saudi Arabia by al queda types would be catastrophic for the US.

  22. 22
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 3:36 PM

    22 Thank god then that they invaded Iraq, which everyone knows was a hotbed for Al Queda types.

  23. 23
    Posted by Billy Ray Human | February 17, 2009 at 4:02 PM

    love the tags, Bess

  24. 24
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 6:32 PM

    If this guy had any common sense he is in a non extradition country.

  25. 25
    Posted by guest | February 17, 2009 at 7:46 PM

    Non extradition country or not, he better not be found.
    Five minutes after the press locates him, there’s going to be a plane inbound from Bogata.

Leave a comment

You can log in with your account or comment as a guest below.

   or